SEARCH THE BIBLE
FIND A BIBLE VERSE
Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Deuteronomy 22:5.
- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition
¶ The woman shall not weare that which pertaineth vnto a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment: for all that doe so, are abomination vnto the Lord thy God.
- King James Version (1611) - View 1611 Bible Scan
"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
- New American Standard Version (1995)
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.
- American Standard Version (1901)
It is not right for a woman to be dressed in man's clothing, or for a man to put on a woman's robe: whoever does such things is disgusting to the Lord your God.
- Basic English Bible
There shall not be a man's apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.
- Darby Bible
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the LORD thy God.
- Webster's Bible
A woman shall not wear men's clothing, neither shall a man put on women's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.
- World English Bible
`The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God [is] any one doing these.
- Youngs Literal Bible
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
- Jewish Publication Society Bible
22:5 Shall not wear - Namely, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases this may be lawful, as to make an escape for one's life. Now this is forbidden, both for decency sake, that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest sign of effeminacy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, which this practice opens a wide door to.
Jim Griffin's comment on 2015-09-03 10:59:02:
When speaking of a mans garment it is referring specifically to the breeches which were designed for the men to wear under their robes and in todays society pants, I've struggled with this verse but after exhausted study have come to the conclusion it means what it says. Better to err on the side of caution than be an abomination.
Celuska's comment on 2015-08-09 23:11:39:
I think that God Is wise and he knows all those complications in this modern world.
Ubong N. Adiauko's comment on 2015-07-29 08:45:22:
Adam answered and replied to God saying 'the wife you gave me, when God asked him hast thou eaten of the tree I instructed you not to? In the case of Due. 22:5, there was and there's still a clear specifications in the issues of man not adoring himself with women apparel and vice versa. God knew human mentality that His word can be questioned and He spelled this law out through moses. It was to be observed physically, mentally, emotionally and otherwise, unlike Adam telling God ' this wife you gave me,' meaning that God should have instructed Eve also. God is Truth.
Sabbatismos A.'s comment on 2015-07-27 03:23:45:
Everyone seems to pretend not to understand the post by Abbas James, where he said God speaks before things happen. None is seeing that someone here is implying that God gave the command to Israel because of the heathen nations around. Even the person didn't bother telling us what was meant by the "pertaineth", he just finagled away from it. Another appealed to "Women of God" who wear what they like and do great things... someone even said it wasn't addressed in the NT. Was the Bible supposed to be "NT re-addressing what is addressed in the OT"? Is the NT the "two edged sword" of God Almighty? Why is none defining the "pertaineth" and the "abomination"? And, why do we disagree that unisex clothing was never started by Christians-strictly defined? Where is a woman seen listed among those who go to war in Scriptures, and what weapons were they to use that might have differed from that of men? Which weapons do American women armies use? When did women start going to war?... Why are we deceiving ourselves, modifying the innerrant and unmistakable Word? Let me ask this, pls: now that a woman can be modestly adorned in women trousers, pls, how can a man be modestly adorned in male skirts? Thanks for your answer. Greetings from Nigeria.
Kevin's comment on 2015-07-19 01:55:44:
we need to study words in the Word. and know the history of the time. First if you study the words, it is referring to war garments, something prepared, i.e. any apparatus as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon :--armour -bearer , artillery, bag, carriage, furnish, and males in armies of the heathen around them, would put a dress womans robe, over their armor to sneak attack enemy, it was a disguise to get in close to attack. And this is part of the law of moses which was nailed to the cross according to Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross there are various 'laws ' in the bible, the law of moses is gone, it was a civil code for that nation alone, and ceremonial laws which were done away with at the cross, their are health laws that we are not 'under the law ' but we should follow for our own health sake, and the moral law, the 10 commandments which are eternal. SO where in the NT is this issue addressed ? and even in this Deut 22 it is not what everyone thinks.
Pastor Caleb's comment on 2015-07-13 04:13:09:
don 't be lead by what people say,due22:5 not trousers nor skirt it 's about homosexualism and modesty in dressing
Josie's comment on 2015-06-15 13:14:43:
Well I love jeans but while me wearing them is like me dis obeying God 's word in: be bible
Nessa's comment on 2015-06-13 14:44:40:
I am not convicted for wearing pants made for women. I am confused by what people say concerning, Deuteronomy 22:5. The Text is speaking about cross-dressing and homosexuality, there were no trousers at that , the difference in the clothing, was the fabric and sewing style one for male and one for female cloaks, robes, and tunics, just as it is today, with the styling of the clothes that we wear. The trousers for men are made in a different style as those of women. I think some people use this and other scriptures to lord over or control others. Dressing modestly is what matters, therefore a woman can dress modestly in women 's trousers just as she can in a dress, on the other hand women can dress in women 's clothing and it not look modest. Men can dress in men clothing and it look modest, on the other hand it could not look modest. Again Deuteronomy 22:5 is speaking about cross-dressing and homosexuality which is an abomination to God. Traditional and religious, I am neither, but I am spiritual and growing in the Lord, please let the Spirit of God guide me and others who truly want to please Him with our lives. If you can 't help please don 't hinder with your opinions, God is not the author of confusion, so study and explain, don 't just read and give an opinion. Be blessed.
Therese Engbrock's comment on 2015-06-05 20:06:13:
Do you suppose that back in the 1960,s when women and feminism took hold that GOd knew that society would become so acceptting of gays,transgender people.and this is why He wanted people to be what He made them to be.Holy and separate for Him?
Durojaye Mike's comment on 2015-05-26 05:24:28:
The word partaineth means,belongs,owns etc.Therefore,no dress should exchange between opposite sexes,except they are couples-husband and wife are one.
Solomon's comment on 2015-05-20 13:56:06:
pls let us be realistic, which one is the men 's clothing, is it only the trousers? bcos as we have the men 's shirts, suits, trousers, shoes etc. so likewise the women also have their own trousers, shirts, suit,shoe, etc so which one is really the problem bcos any time they talk about men 's cloth its always refered to only trousers. pls deut. 22:5a is talking about modesty in dressing .Thanks and God Bless you.
Unknown's comment on 2015-05-19 19:32:06:
I say if it says ABOMINATION, go by it!!
Nokuzola Mnisi's comment on 2015-05-19 15:12:10:
The word if God is true whatever happen now it will never change. don 't add and don 't subract it just obey it
Justine Monene's comment on 2015-05-18 12:56:23:
why do we struggle to change the true meaning of the verse? The verse is very categorical that both sex should respect opposite sex 's garments.Woe to anybody disobeying.
Ps Moses's comment on 2015-05-12 05:24:28:
This is God 's word and it 's a mystery we need God 's spirit to reveal this chapter of deateronomy 22v5. what I m saying neither old or new testament it matters not the word of Godits his command...The only thing we need it 's revelation, not arguments may God help us
Mettle Friday's comment on 2015-05-11 05:27:34:
Please i need advice, before anything happen bible has already said it, the Bible says in Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear a man 's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman 's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. I want to ask, since that portion of bible said so, which portion of bible indicates men 's and women 's wear? Thank you as you will advice me.
Jim's comment on 2015-05-10 23:18:01:
don 't women 's socks, shirts,shoes, etc pertain to a mans socks, shirts, shoes, etc? so why is it people limits duet.22.5 only to the pants skirt issue? also what about colors that have been domanitally a woman color like purple,pink etc but they also make purplelish colors for men in men shirts etc. i beleive duet22.5 is speaking of crossdressers etc.
Michele's comment on 2015-05-10 12:05:07:
I believe that women should wear women 's clothing and that Men should wear men clothing. I ready don 't see were it 's wrong if a woman wears pants as long as they are made for women. shoes are pertaining to man...and We all have to wear them, so what 's the difference ?? They make women 's coats, shoes, boots, gloves, hats, sweaters, eyewear and etc
Motala Mtonga's comment on 2015-05-07 07:01:10:
The body is the temple of the Lord not a cloth is atemple of the Lord.Jesus when he was cleaning his father 's temple that was turn to bussines we say cleaning our body repenting confessing.Deutronomy was is againsts Lesbians Gays.Old days people dressed in Robes which are inform of skirt dress and trouser is mentioned once in the bible Misheck shadreck abidnego refusing to bow to an idol.2 Corithians 8 we just believe in God.I have never been at theological school but why old testament new testament?JESUS come for ....,Malawian youth age 29 thanks
Pastor Ross's comment on 2015-05-06 18:46:30:
What is so often overlooked is the part that says that it is an "abomination to God. " Anytime in scripture that God calls something an abomination to him it never changes, it was, is and always will be an abomination to God. Compare it with other verses that call things an abomination to God. Sounds like dress is pretty important to God. I for one don 't wear clothing that is feminine and my wife doesn 't wear pants or other masculine clothing.
Share your own thoughts or commentary here...